(Sorry for all the individual posts). Unfortunately, that puts us right back where we started without a decent theology to explain the conflation of the Father and the Son in Moses 7 and to support their separate existence such as in Moses 2 in which the Father states that the Only Begotten had been with him from the beginning. Back to expansionalist modalism I guess...

Then again... I think you’re onto something:
“Ah lish The first Being— supreme intillegence; supreme power; supreme glory= supreme Justice; supreme mercy without begining of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things: the invisible and eter[n]al godhead.”
That’s from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. You get both the description of an individual and the inclusion of the Godhead.
The same thing is probably going on in the 1832 revelation. God the Father’s name is Ahman, but Ahman is also the Godhead, and so we get the clarification immediately following the statement that Son Ahman is the greatest part of Ahman.

The other part of the 1832 revelation that makes this pretty simple are the two questions: what is the name of God and what is the name of the Son of God. This sounds like we are dealing with two members of the Godhead, not the Godhead and the Son of God. The fact that the term Godhead gets used in the revelation infers that the original question is about the Father and not the Godhead, else why not just use the term Godhead as its readily available.

Also don’t forget that names in the endowment are used for access. Those names include literal names and figurative examples. All of that is to say that the endowment does not by any means rule out Ahman being the literal name of the Father.

Oops didn’t see this when I wrote the other post. However, I think everything I wrote above stands. According to the revelation, Ahman is a being which is more indicative of the Father than the Godhead. Ahman and Son Ahman look like a Father Son relationship that parallels Man of Holiness and Son of Man from Moses 7.
As far as the Endowment goes, there is no referencing the Godhead by a single name in there, but instead the endowment gives specific names to Gods, probably members of the Godhead. The Adam reference is JS’ revolutionary doctrine that God the Father is an exalted man, so man (Adam) was made in the literal image of God. according to JS knowing the nature of God is paramount to a saving faith, and so it makes sense that referencing that would be a key to asking and receiving in JS’ mind.

I quoted JS from 1941 (later on but still somewhat relevant) inferring that the God we pray to is Ahman. https://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/9Mar41.html
In Moses 7 the Father gives his name as Man of Holiness, contrasted to the Son of Man. Ahman and Son Ahman are clear parallels.
The naming scheme and JS’ instructions on prayer both suggest Ahman is the Father.
Probably not. The firstborn is used throughout JS’ works to reference Jesus Christ. While I agree that the text is pretty convoluted, the Firstborn here is most likely a reference to Jesus somehow.
Actually, on rereading this, its probably just saying that the greatest part of Sons Awmen, meaning man, is Son Awmen or Christ.
I’m not sure why you think it’s the Godhead. I’ve already given a couple of reasons why I think the Father is a good fit. Additionally, the text says Awmen is a being. I doubt JS would say that the Godhead is a being.

In case you missed the point of this thread, it’s to discuss what JS taught about the nature of God in 1839-1832. This discussion doesn’t represent my personal belief, but a historical approach to JS’ texts. Your posts are off topic and I’d ask you to refrain from posting that here. As all forum members, you are welcome to start your own thread.

Joseph Smith said in the 1840s that Eloheim signifies the council of Gods, and specified that the head of that council was the Father (see KFD). However, Ahman does not equal the council. The 1832 revelation specifies that Ahman is a “being.” Secondly, in the same period JS was teaching that Eloheim is interpreted as a council, he was teaching that God the Father to whom we pray is named Ahman:
“the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain.” (1841)
https://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/9Mar41.html

Or you could just read the plain English. It’s straight forward.
Honestly, I’m not sure what your up in arms about. I didn’t even say anything that controversial, except that Son Ahman is the greates part of Ahman, which is essentially a quote. Is that the part your taking issue with?
Everything else I said is very tame, I thought.

I’d considered this possibility. Because JS’ texts carefully address the subject in multiple ways (doctrinal exposition and narrative), I think thqt JS likely had some underlying theology that justified all of it. The 1832 Sample of Pure Language certainly suggests one. The question from there is, was this what undergirds the BOM, Moses and JST of is it something that came after that fits with it all.

I simply mean, you gave an ancient Jewish justification for the Moses 7 conflation of the Father and Son and I'm suggesting you find an articulation of that justification in the JS' revelations/translations.
Fair points. So far, I'm trying to stick as close to the texts as I can and let them speak for themselves as much as possible.
I think the pure language sample revelation gives us the model, and its coherent if a little simplistic. I was posting it while you posted this.
Fair point. I was just doing my best to put the apparent theology into words. Again, I think the sample of pure language gives us the best model. Christ is a part of the Father, allowing for some conflation and separate existence all at the same time.
I've been meaning to go back to that. I'll go check it out.
Right. I'd like to know JS thoughts on this kind of thing if he ever gave them, or what any of his revelations/translations say about it. That would be informative.
This is fantastic. I've been interested in early mormon doctrine on divinization since I set foot here in the forum. I really like how these documents address the nature of God in context of man's relationship with Him.

OK, so I think some of the most important points I’ve overlooked so far are Satan’s desire to more or less be the Only Begotten in Moses 1 and 2 and the ability of man to become one with God even as the Son and the Father are one as taught in 3rd Nephi 19:23 (thanks Clark) and in the Ammon narrative.
I think one more puzzle piece may put it all together, and that’s the revelation on pure language from March 1832.
http://juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-i-the-text/
The first thing I'm taking away from this is that human kind or man (Sons Awman) are a part of God (Awman), similar to how Christ (Awman Son) is.
The underlying theology in the BOM may or may not be different. The BOM explains unification with God as a function of the Holy Ghost, which the text shows through narrative and doctrinal explanation in 3rd Nephi 19 and in the Ammon narrative. Of course, these two ideas from the BOM and the above revelation can work together.
As far as the relationship between Awman and Son Awman goes:
1. Awman is a being.
2. Son Awman is a part of Awman.
3. Son Awman is the firstborn.
4. (If I've got this right) Son Awman is the Godhead.
I'll leave the fourth point alone for now and just focus on the second. Somehow, Christ is part of Awman, the being which made all things. That's not an extremely articulate definition, but it's enough to justify Enoch turning to ask God the Father when he will return again to earth (as the son). It's also sufficient definition to justify the Father and the Son being present at the same time.

Sure, I’ll have to educate myself, but I think the most important issues are made bare in JS’ texts, which is where I gleaned the issue in the first place. If JS’ texts aren’t mentioning the essence of God, my guess is that it’s less significant to him and those around him.
This makes the 1832 history even more odd though. If he is publishing explicit visions of the Father (Moses 7 published August 1832), why wouldn’t his 1832 history include the Father explicitly if his original experience did?
There is similar doctrinal exposition of man becoming one with God in the Ammon narrative. I think you’re right. This doesn’t fit modalism.
Sounds good. I’m about to put something up there to move the discussion along.